DATE OF FILING :25/11/16 

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th  day of  August  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

           SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO. 337/2016

 

Between

Complainant         :   The High range Super Speciality Co-Operative  

                                                        Hospital Society, Thankamany Kara, Thankamany P.O.,

                                                        Represented by its Secretary, 

                                                        Subish, S/o Gopalan, 

                                                        Kallooparambil House,

                                                        Kochuthovala Kara, Kattappana Village, Idukki Taluk.

(By Adv:  Lissy M.M.)

                                                         And

Opposite Party                     :  1 . The ION Power Systems Private Limited, 

                                                        Head Office: XXIII, 114 IA, ION Building,

                                                        Telephone Exchange Road, Thodupuzha. 

                                                  2 .  The Managing Director, 

                                                        The ION Power Systems Private Limited, 

                                                        Head Office: XXIII, 114 IA, ION Building, 

                                                        Telephone Exchange Road, Thodupuzha.

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case  of the complainant is that,  

 

The complainant society purchased two IKVA  UPS from the first opposite party for their computer system.  The UPS had some malfunctioning  and were entrusted  to opposite parties and were repaired on 27/07/16 by realising Rs.900/- as repair charges.  The same complaint repeated and those UPS were again entrusted to the opposite parties on 24/08/16.  Out of 2 UPS given for curing the defect, the opposite parties returned one UPS on 30/08/16 by charging Rs.2,400/- as service charges.  Even after the lapse of 2 months, the opposite parties has not cared to return the other UPS after curing its defect.  So the complainant issued a registered notice to the opposite parties informing   that   the   repaired   UPS   again   showed   same   complaint,   and

                                                                                                                           (Cont....2)

-2-

demanding the other UPS already entrusted to them for repair.  On receipt of notice opposite parties replied it raising some baseless contention on 08/10/16.  In the reply notice opposite parties stated that UPS are ready for delivery and since the complainant was not ready to pay the repairing charges it is not returned.  Such a contention is baseless, and the complainant further averred that the opposite parties were duty bound to inform the complainant this matter in time.  The alleged UPS repaired by the opposite parties repeatedly malfunctioning due to the defective repairing of the opposite partie's technicians and the defect of the UPS occurred is not due to short circuit or high voltage.

 

Complainant further contented that they are ready to pay the actual repairing charges if it is repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The long delay caused in return of the repaired UPS from the part of the opposite parties is a gross deficiency in service.  Due to that the complainant was forced to purchase new UPS for to their day to day functioning.  

 

Hence alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties complainant filed this petition for allowing the relief such as to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version, admitting  the defects of the UPS and its repair, opposite parties further contented  that the first opposite party has not given any service guarantee to the alleged UPSs, since these UPSs were purchased by the complainant from the first opposite party  8  years back.  Opposite parties further contented that complaint of the UPS was Mosfet Burned due to short circuit or voltage variation.  The same was duly informed to the complainant and requested them to rectify to mistakes in the wiring of the complainant premises. The same was evidencing from the job card.  The opposite parties informed the complainant that the UPS which were entrusted by them on 24/08/16 were repaired, and the complainant took one UPS on 30/08/16 and denied to take back the other one on the reason of financial problem, and they are not in a position to pay service charge of both UPSs.  But the opposite parties repeatedly requested to take back other UPS, by making its service charge of Rs.1400/-.  The second UPS was ready for delivery on 30/08/16 itself.

                                                                                                                            (Cont....3)

-3-

Instead of taking both UPS the complainant chosen to take back only one, on receipt of the notice, the opposite parties responded in time and narrated all these facts on 08/10/16.  Neglecting the request of the opposite parties for take back the UPS, complainant issued the said registered notice.  The complainant is admitted in para 5 of the complaint they are ready to pay the actual repair charge, if it is repaired to the satisfaction.  But the complainant has not take any steps to take back the UPS or to examine its condition.  The opposite parties further contented that there was not even a whisper in the complaint with respect to the present condition of the repaired UPS which is using by the complainant.  Hence actual fact being so, no deficiency in service is happened on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

Evidence adduced by both the side by way of documents alone.  The documents which were produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P4.  Ext.P1 is the copy of the registered notice, Ext.P2 is the reply notice dated 08/10/16, Ext.P3 is the cash remittance receipt, Ext.P4 is the field service report.  The documents produced by the opposite parties are marked as Ext.R1 to Ext.R3.  Ext.R1 is the copy of job card dated 19/07/16, Ext.R2 is the copy of job card dated 28/08/16, Ext.R3 is the copy of job register.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:-  We have heard the counsel for both the parties and gone through the evidence on record.  By perusing the averment of the complainant and contention of the written version along with the  exhibits marked from both sides, it is very clear that both the UPS were having same problem and the problem repeated.  The problem was cured by the opposite parties, and returned both the UPS to the complainant once and as per the version of the complainant, on entrusting the both UPS before the opposite parties for repair on the second time ie, on 24/08/16 opposite parties failed to return one UPS even after repeated demands. Hence the complainant caused to issue a registered  notice  demanding  the  other  repaired  UPS.  Here on perusing the

                                                                                                                            (Cont....4)

-4-

notice and reply notice dated 08/10/16 opposite parties intimated that, both the UPS were repaired, but the complainant was taken back only one UPS by paying Rs.2400/- as repair charge, on the reason that, due to the financial stringency he cannot pay the service charges of the second UPS.  This allegation of the opposite parties has not denied by the complainant, more over in this complaint he specifically stated that he is ready to take back the repaired UPS, if it is repaired to their satisfaction.  As per the reply notice and the contention of the reply version, opposite parties pointed out that the problem repeated to the UPS were after nearly one month of its repair and the job cards shows that, the defect is happened due to the short circuit or high voltage, and if it is due to the defect in repair, the UPS would show complaint immediately after its functioning.  The version of the opposite parties are believable and complainant has not adduced any evidence to convince that the wiring of the premises, where the UPS in question were installed is having no defects.  On perusing the contention of para 3 of the complaint it is seen that complainant took back one UPS on 30/08/16, and immediately he issued notice to the opposite parties.  Ext.P1 is the copy of such a notice, in this notice no date of issuance is shown, but Ext.R2 reply notice dated 08/10/16.  That mean immediately after taking back one UPS, the complainant issued demand notice probably it is within one month.  So the averment of the para 3 of the complaint is not believable.  More over in the reply notice opposite parties specifically stated that the other UPS is also ready for use, and directed the complainant to take back it soon.  At the same time, complainant is miserably failed to produce any evidence to show that, before issuing Ext.P1 notice, they approached the opposite parties for taking back the repaired UPS, as alleged in the complaint.

 

  On the basis of the above discussion Forum finds that, there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties in this matter as alleged by the complainant, and the materials produced by the complainant is not sufficient to prove it.  Hence complaint dismissed.  

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2018.

                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                      SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                                                           Sd/-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

             SRI. BENNY. K.  (MEMBER)

 

                                                                                                                            (Cont....5)

-5-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -  The copy of the registered notice

Ext.P2            -  The reply notice dated 08/10/16

Ext.P3          -  The cash remittance receipt

Ext.P4          -  The field service report

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1       -  The copy of job card dated 19/07/16,

Ext.R2       - The copy of job card dated 28/08/16,

Ext.R3       - The copy of job register.

 

 

            Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                 SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT